I would understand if Canonical want a new cow to milk, but why are developers even agreeing to this? Are they out of their minds?? Do they actually want companies to steal their code? Or is this some reverse-uno move I don’t see yet? I cannot fathom any FOSS project not using the AGPL anymore. It’s like they’re painting their faces with “here, take my stuff and don’t contribute anything back, that’s totally fine”

  • marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    The point is that even if companies have the personnel to contribute back, most of them don’t. It simply isn’t in their interest. If a project is good enough, AGPL will mean that no monopoly will form around that project and open standards will be maintained. AGPL is simply a bastion against closed-source software working against the best interests of consumers

    • Vincent@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Yeah I get that point, and so my point is that if the use case is important enough that they’d be able to justify allocating that personnel, I use the AGPL to give them that nudge. When it’s just some non-critical component, then I’ll just slap an MIT on it and be done with it.

      • marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        The only problem is companies will always try to use MIT and using it for small projects will set a precedent. And we don’t have a governing body strong enough to enforce the GPL (nobody listens to the FSF)

        • Vincent@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Ha, well, if my single-digit-downloads (all by me) NPM module is influential enough to set precedent, then I’d consider that a success.